the one approach says we've got this deficit problem, and we want to address it. the other is the norquist approach, which is really more about reducing government to its irreducible core. and that is an indiscriminate sort of slashing. that's the wrong path for the country. and that's the path we can't take. >> things have changed so much since i was there. you talk about discretionary versus mandatory. when i was there back in the '90s, you could actually go after discretionary spending and move towards a balanced budget. we're way past that now. you're talking about 11% for domestic discretionary spending. that means everything, outside of defense, outside of medicare, outside of medicaid, outside of social security. that's about 85% of the budget. >> and we just made some pretty deep cuts last summer. >> right. so when you have a party saying we're going to balance the budget by going after education, transportation, r&d, i mean, energy, you're basically going after your seed corn while china is doubling on education. china is doubling down on r&d. china is do